The writers of the below public records request were trying to determine by what authority did the City Attorney’s Office claim their right to hire outside legal without City Council approval. The following first two documents are the letter of request to the City Attorney’s Office asking them to answer the question of no contracts. The last letter is a response by City Attorney Greg Priamos stating there are no documents responsive.

With this in mind, an new issue arose, this was of the City Manager, Scott Barber. The PE reported that the city has hired, with two contracts of $49K each, a law firm to conduct an investigation of two councilman, Davis and Soubirous. The $49K is significant because it is just below the $50K cap that the city manager can spend without seeking council approval. We don’t contest that the City Manager has the right to spend this money without council approval, but we don’t believe that Section 701 of the City Charter gives the City Manager the authority to hire outside legal without City Council approval.

Section 703 of the City Charter says: “The city clerk shall have the power and be required to: (c) maintain separate books, in which a record shall be made of all written contracts and official bonds.” We believe the intent of this charter requirement is for there to be a publicly accessible record of how public funds are being spent. The practice of hiring outside legal services circumvents the intent of this section.

Section 1401 of the city charter states: “the violations of any provision of this charter shall be deemed a misdemeanor and be punishable upon conviction by a fine of not exceeding one thousand dollars or by imprisonment of a period not exceeding six months or by both such fine and imprisonment.” We can therefore ask the question, “Is it per incident?” If it is, it certainly can add up for some individuals. When we are talking about millions of dollars, as indicated in the Press Enterprise, we have to ask the question, “Does it become a felony?” How then can one account for such mismanagement of taxpayer monies without a legal rationale for the beneficial purposes of those monies? What is the real truth here that appears to have been circumvented by City Attorney and City Managers by a document called a City Charter? A document which appears not to be abided by when it should.

We say this because of the circumstances. We bring the incident which involved our current City Manager Scott Barber. Just in September of 2012, City Manager Scott Barber decided to take his City Manager hat off and play Council by authorizing a change order of $2.5 million without council authority for the Fox Performance Plaza. He brought the issue to Council and basically appeared they would rubber stamp the idea, after-the-fact. Had this type of shenanigans been done before by the prior City Manager? The City Manager’s discretionary spending cap is at $50,000.00, anything over that amount must go to council. Certainly violated the Charter Amendment. What made Barber think that he had the authority to act as an elect and ferret it out without them? A complaint should have been filed against him with Human Resources, and Council should have fired him immediately.

The question is, “Why should the taxpayer put up with what appears to be “rogue” activity? What should be done about it? Why isn’t anything being done about it now?” It is appearing that by default we are experiencing the “two sets of rules syndrome.” So why does the house always win, when the taxpayer should be in charge?

It has been apparent to the community of the close working relationship between the law firm Best, Best & Krieger and the City of Riverside. What’s quite evident in fact is that the working relationship between the two entities involves oral contracts.

According to City Attorney Gregory Priamos no hard contracts exist not even a retainer agreement, when a public request act is initiated. When it comes to a public accounting of the expenditures of the City Attorney, as requested by Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello, a rejection letter below, for the request was sent. According to the letter Gregory sent, there is no such accounting that has been prepared, and according to law, the law does not impose any duty to create such a record. Therefore, non is required. Since when has the taxpayer not be allowed to know what their money is being spent on? This should be disturbing to many people, because it states that they treading waters they should not be treading. And according to the law, the City Attorney’s office is not required to disclose the spending of taxpayer monies. You have to know there is something very wrong with this picture. Common sense would tell you there is something to hide behind the dark glasses of City Attorney Gregory Priamos. But there was nothing to hide after allowing $159 million in illegal RDA loans to be approved by City Council, then rejected by the Finance Office for the State of California. What would then be the result of his performance evaluation, which was being discussed in closed sessions Tuesday April 4, 2012, at City Council? I’m sure, just as it went well for our former City Manager, this will go well..

Above is a letter sent to Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello regarding her request for an accounting of the City Attorney’s from Gregory Priamos. The law does state that if no documents are responsive to ones request, they, the city has to help you identify the request.

On 05/15/2012 at City Council, Mayoral Candidate Dvonne Pitruzzello stated to City Attorney Gregory Priamos, ‘how many denials of public records act does it take to get disbarred”? What’s a real contradiction is that the City of Riverside has ‘retainer agreements’ for services with every other law firm they do business with. Though an excess in millions of dollars have been paid out to BB&K, there has been no pertinent or rational explanation to the taxpayer. We were even denied BB&K’s billing hours under the public records act. As taxpayers, should we believe that we should expect anything less than a written contract? I would say not. When individuals ask for a rational explanation regarding no contracts, the city’s implication to the community is that “we don’t need no stink’n contracts”? Is this an act of arrogance or defiance by a public servant toward their employer, the taxpayer? If anyone has dealt with lawyers there is always a contract, but it appears that the City is the only entity that is allowed to perform this “verbally”, or as we understand it, not even with a “memorandum of understanding.” One of the biggest law firms in the nation, Best, Best & Krieger is hands down an exception with the City of Riverside? What is it between the two? As community residents, are we also to accept the fact that Best, Best & Krieger is allowed to dictate carte blanche their legal fees to the taxpayer via their own credit card? It seems so, according to the following documents, but what else is the public to otherwise believe?

And we’re not talking nickels and dimes, but six figures and more. So the question is, who’s in charge and watching taxpayer’s coffers? It appears the city council is not, not even the mayor, it definitely appears that the city attorney’s office isn’t according to the excessive litigation cost. So who’s minding the store? Inquiring taxpayers would like to know. But just maybe, the store has an open door policy, right to the cash register. Why? Quite possibly in their incestuous relationship that has grown over the years.

Such as the cozy arrangement between certain ex city of riverside employees or just BB&K employees who are strategically now on city committees. Conflict of interest? The cast of BB&K characters interlaced with City of Riverside, who previously worked with the city, on their boards and committees are numerous. Former Grover Trask (former Riverside County District Attorney), Michelle Quellette (City of Riverside’s Charter Review Committee), Jack Clark (Committee to name City Hall after Mayor Ron Loveridge) or Charity Schiller (Vice Chair of Riverside Downtown Partnership). BB&K has also been in the media with the City of Bell, whereby the city is now suing BB&K attorney Edward Lee for faulty legal advice.Even Governor Jerry Brown subpoenaed BB&K records regarding pay packages in Bell, California. In any case, we don’t know how this one fell through the roof, but we did manage to receive one arrangement between BB&K and the City of Riverside to represent Former Chief of Police Russ Leach. What a surprise, it’s signed by City Attorney Greg Priamos and Grover Trask, former Riverside County District Attorney now in the employment of BB&K. Oh lets’ just call it a “contract”, or correctly a “retainer agreement”. Tomato, tomahto, oh let’s just call the whole thing off… Wish we could, but it gets better.

Then there is developer Mark Rubin’s connected liaison with the City of Riverside and the City’s alter ego, the Redevelopment Agency. There is no doubt the brazen display of a conflict of interest displayed and perpetrated by the City of Riverside in approving the Citrus Tower’s lease deal between Best, Best & Krieger, Developer Mark Rubin and the City of Riverside. “Three peas in a pod?” Is it at all possible that the BB&K deal was orchestrated and designed to provide a lease revenue stream for the bonds held on the Citrus Tower project? Was BB&K involved in bond advice for the city? Councilman Paul Davis first told colleagues he’d heard concerns about “the general perception of the gift of public funds and creating a monopoly” to benefit a private developer, but he ended by saying it was a moot point because the city already has signed a lease. How long will the City of Riverside continue to terrorize the taxpayer with shear incompetence and their breach of fiduciary duty to protect the coffers of hard earned taxpayer monies by the City Attorney’s Office? Good questions for City Attorney Greg Priamos, who coicidently has attended two of my alma maters, Loyola Marymount University and the University of Southern California. A sad day for both university’s Gregory. The question in the community are the ruthless expenditures within the City Attorney’s Office. How much taxpayer money has been litigated out, or settled out as if it was your own, without any rational cognitive reasoning? Or was it just for sport? Or is the threat of litigation just a city tool used against the opposition for what is known in the business as “client control”? Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. TMC believes the later is mostly true at our expense. Therefore why would the city litigate to the tune of 9 million, then lose, and then have to award out 250K in one documented case? Of course, that wouldn’t happened because after all as taxpayers we should all believe what the city does is rational and in our best interest. Well the truth of the fact is, that it did, and nothing was in our best interest. Though he serves at the pleasure of the council, should the City Attorney answer rightfully to the employer, which would be “we the people”? This I say because the council and mayor has failed to supervise the activities of the city attorney. The failure is such that we must ask the question of what makes one believe the city attorney needs to incorporate police lights with all the bells and whistles in their pimped out city vehicle? Where did one lose the sight of whose money it really is? TMC can’t answer that, but I’m sure there is a rational answer from our city attorney, as in the case with the ‘no contracts allowed with our best customer.’ It may not be right but it is an answer. Ultimately, the council and mayor is responsible for the activities, failures and actions of the city attorney. In an article in Cactus Thorns, the 29 Palms City Council questions the spending to their City Attorney, and when they looked at public records, that was even a total shock. In this continuing painful saga, one can hire BB&K to run a city attorney’s office. Carte Blanche in Riverside. For a price, instant city attorney, as in this article in The Orange County Register? In the City of Yorba Linda, for example, BB&K attorney Sonia Carvalho represented the city in the capacity of the City Attorney for over a decade. Conflict of interest?

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH ZELLERBACH’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

While the City scrambles, TMC’s truth squad, oops, that’s the City’s tag line, has been blogging, reporting and speaking at Council Meetings as to why the Council should not have passed certain loans. In addition, how passing these loans will come back to hurt the tax paying constituents. The states silver bullet of termination appeared to be the only answer. Now 10% of those Enforceable Obligations submitted to the State Finance Department were rejected for not following state guidelines. Enforceable Obligations are legal contracts which declare that one person or agency owes another. The question being asked is were these filing discrepancies inadvertainly overlooked by our protector of citizens, City Attorney Gregory Priamos? And even their hired hand, Best, Best & Krieger? Could these discrepancies possibly be considered faulty legal advice? The City of Riverside shot back at the State Finance Department with the following letter.According to the latest Press Enterprise the City Manager Scott Barber is defending some of the debt.

In the response letter sent back to the State Finance Department by City Manager Scott Barber, he then agreed with the State on the following two items which could not be considered Enforceable Obligations. But shouldn’t the City’s legal council, Riverside City Attorney Gregory Priamos, have been able to clear this question of what is enforceable and what is not?

What is really disturbing in the letter is that Mr. Barber states there are three items of concern that can give way to a rate payer lawsuit. This in response if the State is unable to accept the debt, it will go to Riverside residents in the form of higher utility rates. But in doing so, these would in essence be a violation of proposition 218. These are Page 1, Line Item 29 ($4,329,897.60), Page 1, Line Item 30 ($328,039.22) and Page1, Line Item 32 ($4,793,600.00). Which amounts to $9,451,536.85.

Self Appointed Citizen Auditor, Vivian Moreno, emailed the following letter to Vicki Hightower of the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office indicating our frustration with the use of local resources. The letter was also read to the Council and Mayor at the April 25, 2012 public comment section in council chambers.

What people need to know about the relationship between the Redevelopment Agency and the City of Riverside, is that Redevelopment Agency is a state agency. The agency board is made up of your own city council, mayor and employees of the city’s development department. The City and Redevelopment are one in the same, they just change hats. Ultimately, they are responsible for all actions and decisions.

The Oversight Board or Succesor Agency, with John Tavaglione and Mayor Ron Loveridge on the sidelines appeared to approve all the obligations for the former RDA and thought they could pull the rug over on the State Finance Department. The City and the Oversight Board sent the state a list of obligations they said were allowed and should be paid under the 2011 law that dissolved redevelopment agencies. The Oversight Board in itself was filled with conflicts of interest, and they obviously acted accordingly and expectably. The state then enforced its own pre-released guidelines, and rejected particular line items accordingly. State officials disagreed with a number of items on the list, including construction contracts for the new downtown fire station, Municipal Auditorium and Doty-Trust Park, as well as a disputed amount of loans from the city to the redevelopment agency and nearly $18 million from bonds issued in 2007 that the state says should not be spent. The City of Riverside took offense, and threatened litigation, well Gregory did, possibly by default.

In response to the State Finance Department rejection letter, City Manager Scott Barber will now send the state a response letter early this week, while Mayor Ron Loveridge will follow up with a trip in person to Sacramento. This will turn into a grand event by having his lobbying group, the League of Cities, behind him?

City Attorney Gregory Priamos stated, “We’re confident that by continuing to engage in a serious dialogue with the Department of Finance that we’re going to solve these issues without the need for litigation.”

But to even think that the city attorney would threaten the state with costly taxpayer litigation without considering the guidelines the state implemented, would be considered political suicide. Especially in a time when the city has less of a revenue stream, but not the city attorney’s office it seems. But of course, this is an office which operates without transperancy and without the duty to divulge expenses to the public, of which the public are entitled to. Many constituents in the City of Riverside are telling TMC that they are questioning Greg Priamos’s abilities and practices, which do not appear to be truly protective of our local constituents interest.

According to the letter sent to the City of Riverside by the State of California Finance Department the state says no to approximately 10% of the submissions, while the City of Riverside of course, as we are now aware, threatens litigation. What the State is saying is that Enforceable Obligations (EO), of which the State cites HSC section 34171 (d) , declares in part that Enforceable Obligations do not include any 1. Agreements, 2. Contracts or 3. Arrangements with City (that created the Redevelopment Agency), and especially the Redevelopment Agency itself. So it appears that the City and the Redevelopment Agency entered into multiple loan agreements. The law appears to be very clear, I’m not sure what part Gregory, our City Attorney and Best, Best & Krieger didn’t quite get? I know that they are both sharp cookies and it would appear to me that they wouldn’t allow the city to submit erroneous paperwork purposely. But what do I know, I’m only a common citizen..

But let’s go a little further down. The State considers the following not EO’s. You cannot make inter agency loans and that’s what the TMC truth team has been trying to tell the Mayor and the City Council. Did the city’s lobbying group The League of California Cities say this was legal.? Did the Greater Riverside Chamber say it was legal? Did our City Attorney Gregory Priamos say it was legal. Did Best Best & Krieger, the City’s hired law firm, say it was legal?

There were loans between RDA and the City totaling $41.3 million. There was a cooperative and an agreement between RDA and the City totaling $61.2 million. There was a loan between RDA and the City Housing Authority totaling $1 million. So far $103.4 million total

Then there was an unused revolving line of credit for $19.9 million. Again it remained unused, but the City still tried to push this through for payment regardless. The State said no, it’s not EO’s. New total is $123.3 million.

There are contracts with the city with other entities, not RDA, that the City tried to pass to the state as a Redevelopment issue for $19.9 million. It said no, these are not EO’s. New total, $143.2 million.

There was various expenditures with no expenditure contracts, similar to how the City handles business with BB&K, with no contracts. The state said no, this amounted to $15.4 million. New total, $158.6 million.

So for now, the City of Riverside claims victim status, blaming the state for themselves over extending the city’s finances. We all know that the City is in denial, they will never admit fault, and will not take a bit of responsibility for their past voting record as they should. Continuing to blame the State Finance Department for themselves incurring our $2 billion in Redevelopment debt, and of course, the constituents of this city will ultimately be responsible for the debt. We must also not forget those who were in charge at the time of these occurrences, such as Former Chief Financial Officer/ Assistant City Manager/ Treasurer Paul Sundeen.

The truth of the matter is that the city can only ‘cry wolf’ a limited amount of times, before the residents of this community realize what they have done. But in all fareness we must allow the city’s newly formed “truth squad” to respond to this conundrum, and we will wait to hear from them.

It is now time time to ask the Public Works Director the question the constituents have been waiting to ask, with regards to bids, contracts, change orders and accountability of which he has taken part of .

UPDATE: 06/01/2012: STATE FINANCE DEPARTMENT SEND LETTER OF APPROVAL TO CITY OF RIVERSIDE ALLOWING COVERAGE OF $26 MILLION OF THE ORIGINAL $156 MILLION ORIGINALLY REJECTED. CURRENTLY, APPROXIMATELY $133 MILLION IS UNACCEPTABLE TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND REMAINS A DEBT OF THE CITY.

WHAT WOULD JOE ISUZU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ALL THIS?

UPDATE:04/23/2012: CITY HALL SCUFFLE? Info has been brought to TMC that Councilman Chris Mac Arthur’s aid Chuck Condor was allegedly involved in a scuffle with another individual at City Hall. Condor has been called on the carpet of City Hall for making derogatory remarks such as calling woman commenters “bitches” and “idiots.” This was done in plain sight of others at city meetings. Is Condor out of control? Or is this an accepted part of City Hall culture? TMC has been told Chuck Condor is now on administrative leave, ‘paid leave’? That we do not know. Is Chuck Condor going to lawyer up?

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. RATED ONE TWO STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

As if they were testing their parents, as children do, the state said no more, enough is enough, and slammed it’s iron fist of authority over municipalities. Cities cannot become rogue entities and become microcosms of self proclaimed commonwealths, they must still answer to a higher source, as the state has indicated. California Supreme Court judge ruled this morning that Assembly Bill 1X 26 to abolish redevelopment angencies is legal! Assembly Bill 1X 27, the measure conditioning further redevelopment agency operations on additional payments by an agency’s community sponsors to state funds benefiting schools and special districts, also abolished. This is based on Proposition 22 (specifically Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 25.5,subd. (a)(7)) which expressly forbids the Legislature from requiring such payments. According to the L.A. Times the state acted legally when it abolished more than 400 redevelopment agencies to close a budget gap. The State acted legally. Therfore, the state has the right to legislate and remove legislation as it sees beneficial to the citizens of the state. Assemblyman Chris Norby, R-Fullerton, said the agencies long ago outlived their usefulness and should be shut down, particularly as the state confronts a $25.4 billion budget gap. The cities lobbying groups, The California Redevelopment Association and The League of California Cities sought a writ relief arguing that each measure was unconstitutional. Well ok.. You have to wonder why these city lobbying groups, who represent cities, are going to the costly legal expense of fighting so hard, for taxpayer monies for a city’s redevelopment plans. Well, then, are they really looking at the best interest of the taxpayer in the long run? ..or in reality, only for those they actually represent? and in addition, do they actually contribute to the abuse by showing cities how to fully take advantage of redevelopment, against the best interest of the taxpayer? In our opinion, these lobbying groups are in no way friends of the taxpayer. According to the California Legislative Analyst Office back in February 16, 2011 came to the conclusion that there was significant policy shortcomings of the California Redevelopment Program. They made mention that documents released by the California Redevelopment Association (CRA), a lobbying group for the cities, were seriously flawed. This was in reference to claims made by the CRA that 304,000 jobs would be lost if redevelopment agencies were eliminated.

Hopefully Dan won’t be warned with a SLAPP suit by unknown entities within the City as TMC, for stating an opinion. But even the City of Riverside pushed the envelope of their contempt by calling the states actions a form of “ransom”, as indicated in their July 27, 2011 news release, or even as a form of “theft”, as indicated in this June 16, 2011 release. I wonder if they are on the State’s list of potential SLAPP suit candidates?

CLICK THE IMAGES TO READ THE WHOLE NEWS RELEASE

All you have to do is walk Downtown Riverside and see what your $1.8 billion has attained for the taxpayer. What does our city’s favorite son, former city manager Brad Hudson have to say about this? What did he know? and did he leave town just in time? Will the city now try to sneak a new ballot initiative for the citizens of riverside to pay the bill for their bad business decisions and indiscretions? Get ready for higher property taxes. Just by the fact of shutting 400 angencies throughout the State of California, state officials already estimated that the new laws would generate $1.7 billion this fiscal year, the City of Riverside has already spent $1.8 billion alone on redevelopment projects… in the middle of this, where are the obligatory affordable housing projects? They weren’t found in the Raincross Promenade… What are ex and fired city employees saying about the cities redevelopment program? Where does the City of Riverside go from here?

Thursday morning Riverside City Officials converged for an emergency meeting regards to the effects of the new Supreme Court rulings. I would have loved to be a “fly” on the wall on that one. Keeping in mind, the redevelopment agency and the city are two different entities which are unrelated. Mayor Ron Loveridge said the meeting was to discuss a potential $5 million shortfall, which the new ruling would place in the city’s general fund budget. Therefore, some projects would not get done, such as the new shopping plaza in the Five Points area and a long-planned multi-modal transit center. Some months back, TMC reported comingling of the general fund with redevelopment money, and a $5 million dollar oversight. Questions were being raised regarding the movement of state monies to the city’s general fund, otherwise known as an inter-agency transfer. As far as we understand, state agency monies cannot be transferred to the city’s general fund, monies are to remain in seperate accounts. The question still remains unanswered. Mayor Ron Loveridge called it “the worst possible outcome for cities.” Which is true, since the taxpayer will be the one responsible for the bill.

He went on to say, “Redevelopment’s been our primary way which we’ve created jobs and worked on economic development projects, and now that tool is taken away.”Let me think about this, the primary way we create jobs, according to the mayor, is through taxpayer raised monies? I always believed as many, it is in the private sector. And that the success of a business is dependent on what they produce in terms of products or services, or both. This creates demand, demand then creates value. This in turn creates the encentive for the business to expand, hire more people, in turn, creating jobs. Funding jobs through tax payer money does not constitute real jobs in a free market. The idealism of Keynesian economics does not work in this instance, or has it worked in any instance in history. In a capitalist form of government, what would give the impression and perception that government knows best, and this can be the “norm.” It goes against all that this country was originally based on. But the practice and its illusion continues.

UNKNOWINGLY PUSHING THE ENVELOPE, KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT! TMC WISHES ALL, EVEN CITY HALL, A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM BY THE WAY, COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED!

Assistant City Manager Deanna Lorson came under the TMC radar when found that a lease contract was signed for new restaurant called Elephant Thai to go into a redevelopment area, after Governor Brown signed a stay on all redevelopment activity, especially entering into new contracts. But I guess the city knows best? They may need the help of Best, Best & Krieger to defend this one, since this is part of the abuse the governor has been speaking about. Self Appointed Citizen Auditor Vivian Moreno brought this to Council and Ms. Lorson’s attention last Council Meeting. She advised her that she needs to be checking with her City Attorney Greg Priamos about that one. All TMC can say is Slick… How many instances of oversight does it take to make a fraud?

Possible litigation by Claimants: Riverside Community College and Riverside County Office of Education vs. are infamous Redevelopment Agency. What did they do this time? Call Best, Best & Krieger to the rescue or can our fearless city attorney battle this one out single handedly? Well it appears the Riverside City Redevelopment Agency has defaulted on redevelopment money which should have transferred to these educational institutions, all educational institutions statewide are suing cities based on this premise. Good reasoning to abolish RDA? (item #7).

(Item #31) a change order for $111,121.36 requested by Elite Bobcat Services.

(Item #34) Legislative Reports with the City of Riverside’s lobbying group, League of California Cities.

WHO WILL BE HIDING BEHIND THE COMPUTER NEXT WHEN THE AUDITOR COMES ASKING QUESTIONS? CHECK BACK WEEKLY…THAT IS, EVERY CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY! WE’LL EVEN PROVIDE THE DIRECT LINK SO YOU CAN CHECK THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. CALL YOUR LOCAL ELECTED COUNCIL PERSON AND THE MAYOR AND REQUEST THAT A FORENSIC AUDIT BE DONE BY STATE CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG OF THE CITY HALL BOOKS. WITH A NEW INTERIM CITY MANAGER, SCOTT BARBER, THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE NEEDS BASELINE NUMBER AS DONE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN ORDER TO ASSURE BALANCED NUMBERS AND TO CLEAR POSSIBLE DISCREPANCIES OF THE GENERAL LEDGER BOOKS. IF THERE IS NOTHING TO HIDE, THE NUMBERS WILL ALWAYS COME UP RIGHT!

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT, NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL TMC HAS TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE FOR NOW…

Is it true that the Redevelopment debt is increasing incrementally $100,000,000.00 per month? According to the Enforceble Obligation Payment (EOP) in June 2011 the RDA debt was $1.5 Billion, The premliminary draft of the Enforceable Obligation Payment (IROPS-Initial Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule) as of September 27, 2011 states total RDA debt to now be $1.7 Billion. Much of the the debt is being paid with bond proceeds as a revenue source. How long can it sustain itself? This would be as if one pays a debt with a credit card, then later uses another credit card to pay the first credit card. Instead we are using bonds. Bonds are loans. A bond is a formal contract to repay borrowed money with interest at fixed intervals. Will this unsustained failure to deal with lead to banckruptcy? Illegal or just Bad Business? Where does the actions of the council breach their fiduciary duty to the taxpayer? Is there a point whereby bad fiscal decisions just becomes illegal?

“Lying rides upon debt’s back.” -Benjamin Franklin

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT! KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” BLOG SITE! TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE…

INTERESTING STUFF COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE, AND I DON’T MEAN THE CITIES LEAKY SEWERS. THERE IS NO DOUBT WHY GREG IS HIDING BEHIND THE COMPUTER INCOGNITO THIS TIME. ACCORDING TO CITY COUNCIL PERSON NANCY HART, HE WOULD NEVER STEER US WRONG. WELL NANCY HART, I HOPE YOU ARE RIGHT, BECAUSE ISN’T THE CITY OF BELL SUING THEIR EX-CITY ATTORNEY FOR NEGLIGENCE AND FAULTY LEGAL ADVICE? LET’S NOT FORGET, THE EX-BELL CITY ATTORNEY WAS ALSO AN ATTORNEY FOR BB&K. THE VERY FIRM OUR CITY ATTORNEY CONTINUES TO SEEK WHEN IN NEED OF ADVICE OR TO PERFORM OTHER LEGAL ACTIVITIES. IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE CITY IS COMFORTABLE IN IMPLEMENTING VERBAL BILATERAL CONTRACTS, SINCE NO HARD CONTRACTS ARE USED ACCORDING TO CITY OFFICIALS IN RETAINING BB&K. ILLEGAL OR JUST BAD BUSINESS?

HOLDING TRUE TO THEIR MISSION STATEMENT: The mission of the City Attorney’s Office and BB&K is to provide excellent and ethical legal advice, effective legal representation, and other quality legal services for the City Council, City officers, and City employees in order that they may lawfully attain the City Council’s goals and other department program outcomes without undue risk to the City.

WHO WILL BE HIDING BEHIND THE COMPUTER NEXT WHEN THE AUDITOR COMES ASKING QUESTIONS? CHECK BACK WEEKLY…THAT IS, EVERY CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY! WE’LL EVEN PROVIDE THE DIRECT LINK SO YOU CAN CHECK THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. CALL YOUR LOCAL ELECTED COUNCIL PERSON AND THE MAYOR AND REQUEST THAT A FORENSIC AUDIT BE DONE BY STATE CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG OF THE CITY HALL BOOKS. WITH A NEW INTERIM CITY MANAGER, SCOTT BARBER, THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE NEEDS BASELINE NUMBER AS DONE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN ORDER TO ASSURE BALANCED NUMBERS AND TO CLEAR POSSIBLE DISCREPANCIES OF THE GENERAL LEDGER BOOKS. IF THERE IS NOTHING TO HIDE, THE NUMBERS WILL ALWAYS COME UP RIGHT!

THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT, NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL TMC HAS TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE FOR NOW…

UPDATE: PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SIOBHAN FOSTER RESIGNS TO TAKE A POSITION IN PASADENA, AS PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR UNDER CITY MANAGER MICHAEL BECK. NO DOUBT A GOOD TIME TO STEP OUT. BUT IT DOESN’T STOP THERE! ACCORDING TO A PRESS RELEASE BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, SIOBHAN FOSTER WAS “APPOINTED” BY MICHAEL BECK TO THIS POSITION, THEREFORE OVERSTEPPING THE AUTHORITY OF THE KINGDOM OF RIVERSIDE. GET IT , SHE COULDN’T SAY NO! YES, IT ALL GETS WEIRDER BY THE MINUTE. WHY LEAVE YOUR FAMILY, WHEN YOU HUSBAND, BARRY FOSTER, IS MORENO VALLEY’S ECONOMIC DIRECTOR? IS A VOLCANO READY TO EXPLODE IN THE CALDERA KNOWN AS CITY HALL? NOW MICHAEL BECK ALSO WORKED FOR THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AS ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER UNDER CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON. THE OFFICE CAME UNDERFIRE VIA THE ALLEGATIONS OF ILLEGALLY PURCHASED GLOCK FIREARMS, BADGES AND COLD PLATES. FOSTER LEAVES AMIDST THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY EX-CITY EMPLOYEES. FIRED DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY RAYCHELE STERLING ALLEGED THE STEERING OF CONTRACTS WITHIN FOSTER’S OFFICE TO A SELECTIVE OR PREFERENTIAL GROUP OF CONTRACTORS. FIRED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS ADMINISTRATOR SEAN GILL, ALLEGED FOSTER IGNORED HIS CONCERNS REGARDING COST OVERRUNS AND THAT SHE DIRECTED HIM TO GATHER INCRIMINATING INFORMATION ON OTHER EMPLOYEES WHO THREATENED TO EXPOSE WRONGDOING AT THE CITY. OTHERS HAVE OPENLY QUESTIONED HER QUALIFICATIONS AND ABILITIES FOR THE POSITION SHE HELD.. TWO HIGH PROFILE EXECUTIVES HAVE NOW LEFT THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE WITHIN MONTHS OF EACH OTHER. THE OTHER BEING CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON IN AUGUST. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, IS THEIR MORE INFORMATION COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE THAN WE KNOW OF? WHO WILL BE NEXT TO JUMP SHIP? BELINDA GRAHAM, GREG PRIAMOS, DEANNA LORSEN, TINA ENGLISH, TOM BOYD, SCOTT BARBER, RHONDA STROUT, PAUL SUNDEEN? THE PRESSURE IS ON! GOOD LUCK PASADENA!

The move to transfer 189 properties from Redevelopment to the City of Riverside and the Housing Authority in lieu of a suspension by the State of California per Governor Edmund G. Brown. What would be the modus operandi? Steering away from the rules and regulations of RDA? Well, what we have is the transfer of RDA controlled properties now under the control of the City of Riverside per City Council vote. So what we have is the City of Riverside who borrowed monies from the restrictive Sewer Fund, Utilities Fund etc., then loaned them via an intra-angency transfer to the Redevelopment Agency (RDA). RDA then purchased the properties with this money. Then RDA grants the properties back to the City of Riverside, and the City still expects to be paid for the money originally loaned, per tax increments etc. The question many are asking, is this fraud?

By the way, the Executive Director of Redevelopment and the Riverside City Manager are the same person. When the transfers occurred, Brad Hudson was in charge. The current Council for the City of Riverside and the Board of Redevelopment are the same people. Many in the community of Riverside do not know this. The ongoing question many have asked, “Is this a conflict of interest”? Was the the transfer illegal? Or just bad business? But it doesn’t stop there, the deed is still not done. When I say deed, I do not take this lightly, it is the grant deed of ownership of the properties in question that comes to the forefront. When this happens the playing field also changes. In other words, now that the properties are in possession of the city, what happens to the contracts that were signed when the properties were under RDA? What to do with the merchant contracts that now remain under RDA and its restrictions? Possibly venture to move them to the municipality of the City level for better control, by will then show the City of Riverside as the landowner? Would this then be an intention to manipulate merchants by the transfer of contracts within State Redevelopment to the City of Riverside as was done March 08, 2011? These are some of the contracts transferred, Simple Simons, Invites and Delights, Don Carlos, Magnolias, with a side note of The Flowerloft to be handled separately. Would this now allow the City of Riverside to do business as if RDA was active? Would merchants unknowingly then lose certain rights bestowed under Redevelopment, by now being under the City of Riverside? Which would then give control to the City of Riverside, which in turn, would mean different rules and regulations that would not benefit a business environment? Will this transfer be the move which brings the City of Riverside into the limelight with emphasis on its Redevelopment Agency? The very agencies Governor Brown intends to suspend as a result of alleged abuse. Will this be the end of RDA in Riverside? Will Riverside be the poster child for inappropriate activity by its RDA and in the end, not have a penny to spare?

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” BLOG SITE! TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE…

What the City of Riverside is not telling you, even with all the talent, is that the City debt, or your debt rather, is approximately $4.4 Billion ($4,462,592,303 ). Which comes to approximately $58, 708 per Family of Four, or $14, 677 per individual living in the City of Riverside. Get use to the higher utility rates!

1. CITY INDEBTEDNESS: From Comprehensive Annual Financial Report

Electric Utility Fund $828,474,000

Water Utility Fund $414,204,000

Sewer Utility Fund $537,281,000

General Obligation Bonds $25,003,000

Pension Obligation Bonds $182,448,000

Certificates of Participation $348,180,000

Contracts: Enterprise Funds $949,000

Notes Payable: Sewer Fund $8,030,000

Commercial Loan-City National Bank $1,100,000

Capital Leases $9,570,000

Workers Compensation Advances to Other Funds $8,854,000

Electric Fund Advances to Central Stores $650,000

CalPERS New Pension Asset $140,898,000

Other Post-Employment Benefits:

OPEB-Stipend Plans $1,230,000

OPEB-Implied Subsidy $9,853,000

Long Term-Electric Utility Commitments-SCPPA $437,041,000

Landfill Capping $7,030,000

TOTAL CITY INDEBTNESS $2,960,799,000

2. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY INDEBTNESS: From Annual Report to the State Controller: Summary Statement of Indebtness, for all Project Areas.

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” BLOG SITE! TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND THAT’S ALL WE’RE GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT ONE. ANONYMOUS SOURCES WELCOMED, DOCUMENTATION AND PHOTOS WELCOMED, MAKING THEM HONEST, AND HELL, IT AIN’T EASY….

UPDATE: 09/03/2011: THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE DOESN’T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUILD ALL THE AMENITIES PLANNED FOR TEQUESQUITE PARK. CITY BLAMES LACK OF FUNDING ON STATE REDEVELOPMENT. CITY COUNCILMAN MIKE GARDNER STATES THAT TO COME UP WITH THE $19 MILLION STATE PAYMENT TO CONTINUE REDEVELOPMENT, THE CITY HAD TO RAID EVERY AVAILABLE FUND, WHICH DRAINED POTENTIAL PARK FUNDING. THIS ONLY SOLIDIFIES THE IMPLICATION THAT THE LEASE CONTRACT THE CITY SIGNED WITH BB&K WAS IMPLEMENTED TO ALLOW A REVENUE SOURCE FOR REPAYMENT OF THE REDEVELOPEMENT BONDS WHICH WILL COME DUE. CURRENTLY THE STATE HAS PLACED A STAY ON ALL CITY REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE PRESS ENTERPRISE IS EMPLOYING A NOTABLE PRACTICE OF SELECTIVE PLACEMENT OF THE COMMENT SECTION IN FAVORED ARTICLES. WHAT ENDEARING RELATIONSHIP DOES THE PRESS HAVE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE? SINCE THE STORY RAN WITH FALLEN OFFICER BONAMINIO, COMMENTS BECAME HEATED. THIS TOOK NOTICE OF RIVERSIDE CHIEF OF POLICE SERGIO DIAZ. WHO RESPONDED BY CALLING RIVERSIDIAN’S CHEETO EATERS IN THEIR UNDERWEAR! COMMENTERS DID NOT TAKE THIS LIGHTLY AND RESPONDED. SINCE THEN THEIR HAS BEEN AN UNQUESTIONABLE TIGHTENING-UP OF THE COMMENT SECTION BY HAVING TO SIGN UP WITH ONE OF THE MAJOR SOCIAL NETWORKING PAGES. SOME HAVE SAID THAT THIS HAS STOPPED REAL RESPONDENTS FROM POSTING. THE QUESTION IS, DID THE CITY HAVE A HAND IN THIS, DID CHIEF SERGIO DIAZ HAVE A HAND IN IT? ACCORDING TO SOME INSIDERS’S, HE MONITORS THE COMMENT SECTION OF THE PRESS ENTERPRISE FREQUENTLY, AND OTHER BLOG SITES, ESPECIALLY TMC…..

BUT HOW MUCH DEBT SERVICE ANNUALLY IS THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE PAYING ON RENAISSANCE PROJECTS? IF $1.58 BILLION IS THE TOTAL FOR DOING ALL RENAISSANCE PROJECTS, WHAT’S THE TOTAL COST WITH INTEREST OVER THE LIFE OF ALL THE BORROWED MONEY? IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN IT’S ALL PAID OFF, WHAT WILL THE TOTAL COST BE? THIS WOULD THEREFORE BE A PROJECTION, BECAUSE BONDS COULD BE REFINANCED OR PAID OFF EARLY DEPENDING ON THE ECONOMY ETC. WE MUST ALSO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT THE LONGEST TERM OF BORROWING FOR THE RENAISSANCE PROJECTS, SUCH AS 30 YEARS ETC.

SO, TOTAL NEW MONEY BONDS ISSUED DURING THE PERIOD AMOUNT TO $1,084,051,402, INCLUDING NON-CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDS, AS INDICATED IN TABLE 1. THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF OTHER FUNDING SOURCES IN THE RENAISSANCE:

1. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES.

2.USER FEES.

3. STATE, FEDERAL AND REGIONAL GRANTS.

4. LAND SALE PROCEEDS.

5. PRIVATE FUNDING- SUCH AS RAILROADS, DONATIONS ETC.

6. GENERAL FUND CASH.

7. RDA TAX INCREMENT.

8. CERTAIN OLDER RDA BOND PROCEEDS ALLOCATED TO RENAISSANCE.

9. CERTAIN MEASURE-G PROCEEDS ALLOCATED TO RENNAISSANCE.

10. FUTURE PLANNED RIVERSIDE CONVENTION CENTER BOND ISSUE.

THE ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE AMOUNT VARIES BUT TYPICALLY IS IN THE MID $60 MILLLION RANGE FOR 2012 AND EVEN 2013, AS INDICATED IN THIS TABLE 2. IN YEAR 2014 THERE IS A BALLOON PAYMENT THAT WILL LIKELY BE REFINANCED. IT IS WORTH MENTIONING THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE DEBT IS UTILITY DEBT, WHICH THEY ROUTINELY CARRY AND WOULD HAVE REGARDLESS OF THE RENAISSANCE. THE ACTUAL APPROXIMATE COST OVER THE LIFE OF DEBT WOULD HIT THE $2.0 BILLION MARK. THEREFORE, BASED ON THE APPROXIMATE POPULATION COUNT IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN THE CITY WILL BE LEFT TO PAY FOR THE RIVERSIDE RENAISSANCE IN INCREASED SEWER, WATER, ELECTRIC, PARKING AND GENERAL FUND REPLACEMENT. THE $2.0 BILLION BREAKDOWN IS AS FOLLOWS: THE PRINICIPAL IS $1,084,051,402 AND THE INTEREST IS $979,022,581. TODAY, THE COST TO EACH INDIVIDUAL WILL BE APPROXIMATELY $6,660.00, OR A FAMILY OF FOUR WILL HAVE TO PAY OUT $26,400.00.

JOHN CHIANG, WHERE ART THOU? YOU CERTAINLY ARE NOT IN RIVERSIDE….

UPDATE:08/28/2011: OF COURSE, THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, A TAXPAYER LOBBYING GROUP, WON’T TAKE NO FOR AN ANSWER ON THE SUPREME COURTS RULING OF PLACING A STAY ON ALL REDEVELOPMENT. MOST HAVE SAID SINCE IT WAS LEGISLATED IN, IT CAN BE LEGISLATED OUT. BUT THE CRA, WHO SUED THE STATE ON THE CITY’S BEHALF DID NOT LIKE THE RULING. THE CRYSTAL CLEAR RULING PLACES A STAY ON ALL REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY UNTIL THE ISSUE CAN BE RESOLVED IN JANUARY 2012, THIS IS TO PREVENT FURTHER QUESTIONS OF FINANCIAL MOVEMENT. BUT THE CRA HAS NOW ASKED THE SUPREME COURT FOR A CLARIFYING ORDER WHICH WOULD ALLOW LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES WHICH HAVE ADOPTED ORDINANCES TO THE NEW VOLUTARY STATE RULES, PAY THE ENFORCEMENT OBLIGATION PAYMENTS AND CONTINUE TO DO LOCAL RDA BUSINESS AS USUAL. BUT WHAT IS QUITE IRONIC IS THAT THE CRA AND THE CITY DID NOT LIKE THE VOLUNTEER PROGRAM TO BEGIN WITH, THAT’S WHY THEY ARE SUING. SINCE SUING THE STATE PLACED A STAY ON ALL ACTIVITY, THE CRA AND THE CITY NOW WANT THE STATE TO NOW HONOR THE VOLUNTEER PROGRAM IN THE INTERIUM, THAT THEY ORIGINALLY SUED AGAINST. GO FIGURE?

KEEP CONNECTED WITH TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” BLOG SITE! NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE…